Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batman of Zur-En-Arrh


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was  No consensus. The suggested outcomes were keep, delete, merge and redirect, with a split over whether the character, although revived in the 2000s, is notable enough for his own article. Mandsford 02:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Batman of Zur-En-Arrh

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Topic does not seem to be notable NotARealWord (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems to be properly referenced. Mathewignash (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I just don't see how a term that appeared in two comic book stories and one television episode could possibly meet Notability. Keep only if criteria is met NotARealWord (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There are plenty of articles about minor (or at least relatively minor) comics and cartoon characters that are in a sorrier stay than this one, but even though other stuff exists, looking purely at this article it does not meet the notability requirements of multiple instances of significant coverage in secondary sources. With respect to User:NotARealWord above, it is not properly sourced in it's present form.  Brief mentions of the existence of a character in two webzine interviews do not pass significant converage requirements, and the third reference (a toy site I believe, the site was down when I linked it) again only demonstrates that this character is one of many, not that it is notable in and of itself.  Find a secondary source that's primarily about this character, then find ANOTHER secondary source that is primarily about this character, and it will (barely) pass notabilty.  But I'm sorry...not before then. -Markeer 16:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete lack of third-party sources to WP:verify notability of this minor character. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Alternate versions of Batman. Clearly, this is fairly referenced, and while "other stuff exists" I can understand if notability is suspect for this niche character.  The thematic elements of the character are that of an alternate Batman, and clear work has gone into substantiating and referencing the character, essentially in that context. -Sharp962 (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC).
 * Merge I like the merge suggestion. YLee (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Batman R.I.P., not to Alternate versions of Batman. (I'd say merge, but I can't see anything worth merging.) Alternate etc. is chiefly for alternate-universe stories, adaptations, and such, and is chiefly a navigation list, making it a poor merge target. This article is a conflation of two stories: the Batman #113 story, which is one among thousands of Batman stories and isn't noteworthy at all, and a more recent story, Batman R.I.P., which is articleworthy but has its own article. The "Batman Zur-En-Arrh" of Batman #113 is a one-off character, forgotten but for having its name reused. The "Batman Zur-en-arrh" of RIP is a notable...whatever-it-is, I'm not sure it can be called a character, but it's impossible to describe except in the context of the story in which it appears. (In fact, the bulk of this article seems to be given over to re-summarizing RIP.) Desine fata deum flecti sperare precando (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I would disagree. The redirect toward RIP would appear to be a slant towards recent events; additionally, the "one-off" Batman was prominently featured in the Batman: The Brave and the Bold cartoon, which did receive favorable reviews and commentary, , .  Clearly, there is enough not to weight one version over another, the Alternate versions of Batman is the best neutral place to relocate this material. -Sharp962 (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC).
 * I don't understand. Redirecting it to a much-discussed, best-selling storyarc is recentism, because of routine articles about an even more recent single episode of a television show? Neither Batman #113 nor that individual episode of Brave and the Bold are terribly noteworthy, as #113 is a completely unremarkable issue and that issue of BATB is rather unremarkable (as you linked sites that review every single episode of every single ongoing episodic television show that has certain qualities or user review listings). RIP isn't more important because it's more recent; it's more important because it was written by a noteworthy writer, was widely controversial, and a best-seller in original printings and reprints. Consider this for importance: one of your three links mentions R.I.P. in the first paragraph. Desine fata deum flecti sperare precando (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * More importance details: the Batman #113 story is one of three stories. The first introduces False Face in his only appearance, the second introduces Fatman in his only appearance. Desine fata deum flecti sperare precando (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - It seems that there are indeed references. Even noting some in this discussion. And this seems definitely more relevant than noting the sandwich a character may have eaten for lunch. (A typical benchmark - ala User:Hiding.) - jc37 21:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is an article for this really necessary? It's not a regular staple of the Batman mythos or anything. Only had like 3 uses in the decades-long publication history of Batman. NotARealWord (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The interesting thing about this article is what Grant Morrison did with the throwaway character. Ergo, MERGE into Batman R.I.P. is the only option.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Honest question: Have those individuals who have stated there are references for this article actually looked at those references?  Please see my comment above that none of the three web links are to sources with non-trivial coverage of the subject.  The discussion here is whether this article passes wikipedia's guidelines, not if it's "interesting" or because someone slapped three random links at the bottom of the article.  A one or two sentence mention of the character in a much longer article on a broader subject is, I believe, the definition of trivial coverage per WP:SIGCOV. I don't hate this article, and I actually think merging it to either article mentioned sounds like a good idea, I'm just surprised that there's any discussion of keeping it. -Markeer 20:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree it's shitty and trivial. However, as two sentences added to the failing RIP article, it would improve that one's real-world coverage a bit.~ZytheTalk to me! 20:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to note I would love to see a keep, however there seem a lack of support for a keep when I first made my entree, so I offered up a 'merge' as the most appropriate compromise. I have a keeper at heart, merge is merely a consolation.-Sharp962 (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC).


 * Keep Google news has 7 results, all but the second one seem notable.   D r e a m Focus  21:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Merging to Batman R.I.P. would gimp the historical context of the character, however small. The character might have been given new life in the R.I.P. story arc, but is not exclusively owned by it, especially noting the recent television focus on the historical version of the character in the animated Brave and the Bold series.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.